"I have already spent 200,000 pounds for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat."

It must bring small joy to Assange that the Sweden bank that closed Assange's account won't reap the benefit of babysitting his cash. Assange's financial pipeline went dry after MasterCard, Visa and PayPal refused to funnel money to WikiLeaks through credit card and online payments. And, more recently, Bank of America announced it would refuse any transaction intended for WikiLeaks after speculation was triggered that WikiLeaks would release damning internal documents about the bank next year.

In a meekly-worded editorial, the New York Times said these financial institutions summarily halting WikiLeaks transactions raised "troubling questions."

"What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was 'too risky'?," the paper asked hypothetically. "What if they decided -- one by one -- to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations? This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks. "

It's unsettling that the most prestigious newspaper in the United State can only muster such a weak protest. If the New York Times' won't roar about practices that are tantamount to corporate fascism, there is little hope to right the frightening imbalance of power in the favor of corporate interests.